The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

<dh@.> wrote
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>
>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>
> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
> the animals themselves should also always be given
> much consideration.
>


No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
lives".
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On May 30, 8:04 pm, dh@. wrote:

>
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer

http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On May 30, 8:31 pm, dh@. wrote:

> vegetarians may be healthier, but meat eaters do more for the environment.

http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

> "Meat does well because it is not highly processed, provides a lot of calories
> and is often grown locally," says Coley. "But obviously it makes a lot of
> difference whether the meat comes from the local farm or Brazil. I live close
> to Dartmoor, where local cabbages and lamb would produce a very different score
> from New Zealand lamb and Kenyan green beans."

"In Brazil alone, the equivalent of 5.6 million acres of land is used
to grow soya beans for animals in Europe. These 'ghost acres'
belie the so-called efficiency of hi-tech agriculture..." Tim Lang of
the Centre for Food Policy. [11]
...'
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/land/

> In a sense, says Coley, we all "eat oil". The ***modern food industry*** is "in many
> ways a means of converting fossil fuels into edible forms. Food is a large part
> of an individual's impact on the greenhouse effect. Many of us could change our
> diets to have a lot less impact."

'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
Farming in harmony with nature

By Lauren Cahoon
Special to The Journal
August 4, 2006

VAN ETTEN - What if every farmer decided to turn off his
machinery and go without fossil fuels once and for all? And
along with that, what if they all stopped putting pesticides,
herbicides and chemical fertilizers on their fields?

What if every gardener stopped pulling out their weeds and
tilling their soil? Chaos, you say? Mass shortages in crops and
foods, gardens choked with weeds? Perhaps so. But Rob Young,
a Ph.D. student and lecturer at Cornell University, has done all
of the above with his small farm - and the business, like the crops,
is growing.

"We just got a new client who's running a restaurant in one of the
local towns - we brought them some of our lettuce and they went
crazy over it .... our lettuce just knocked them over, it's so good."

Young's Bison Ridge farm, located in Van Etten, runs almost
completely without the use of fossil fuels, fossil fuel-derived
fertilizers, or pesticides.

The land has been farmed since the 1850s. Young and his wife,
Katharine, purchased the farm in 1989. Before that, Young
worked as the Sustainable Business Director for New Jersey
governor Christine Todd Whitman. When he discovered Bison
Ridge, Young started working the land even while he was still
living in New Jersey. Eventually, Young and his wife moved to
the Ithaca area so they could start their graduate program at
Cornell.

"We started doing a little gardening... then added more and more
fields .... at first, we just wanted it to be an organic farm" Rob
explained. Running an organic farm is admirable enough, but at
some point, Young took it a step farther.

"I had an epiphany," he said. "I was transplanting beets after a
spring rain, and I noticed how the land felt all hot and sticky -
almost like when you wipe out on your bike and you get a
brush burn. I know it sounds cheesy, but I could feel how that
(farmed) land had gotten a 'brush burn' when it was cleared and
plowed.

"That's when I decided, I want to work with this land rather than
against it."

After that, Young started throwing common farming practices
out the window. He reduced weeding, adding copious amounts
of composted mulch instead and, because of the life teeming in
the healthy soils and fields around the farm, Young lets natural
predators get rid of any insect pests.

No mechanized machinery is used except for the primary plowing
of new fields. In fact, except for driving to and from the farm (in
a hybrid car, no less), no fossil fuels are used in any part of
production. Irrigation of crops is either gravity-fed from an old
stone well dug in the 1800s or through pumps driven by solar
energy. Super-rich compost is used on all of the crops along with
clover, which fixes nitrogen and adds organic matter to the soil.
Crops are grown in multi-species patches, to mimic natural
communities (insect pests wreak less havoc when they're faced
with diverse types of vegetation).

In addition, the farm has a large greenhouse where most of the
crops are grown as seedlings during the late winter/early spring
to get a head start. The entire structure is heated by a huge bank
of compost, whose microbial activity keeps the growing beds
at a toasty 70 degrees. During the spring and summer, most of
the plants are grown in outdoor raised beds - which yield about
three times as much per square meter as a regular field.

"When people visit the farm, they comment on how we're not
using a lot of the land - they don't realize we're producing triple
the amount of crops from less land," Young said. "It is labor
intensive, but you can target your fertility management, and the
produce is so good."

Young's passion for earth-friendly farming has proved to be
infectious. As a student, teaching assistant and teacher at
Cornell, Young has had the chance to tell many people in the
community about Bison Ridge, which is how Marion Dixon,
a graduate student in developmental sociology, got involved
with the whole endeavor.

"I had wanted to farm forever - and was always telling myself,
'I'll do it when I'm not in school,'" she said. But when she heard
Young give a speech about recycling and sustainable living at
her dining hall, she knew she had found her chance to actually
get involved.

Dixon and Young now work the farm cooperatively, each
contributing their time and effort into the land.

"I've had a lot of ideas," Young said, "but the work has been
done by a lot of people - it's a community of people who have
made his happen."

He said that because of Dixon's input, they now have a new
way of planting lettuce that has doubled production.

Although Young and Dixon are the only ones currently running
the farm, during the summer there are always several people who
contribute, from undergrads to graduate students to local people
in the community - all united by a common desire to work with
the land.

"There's personal satisfaction in working the soil, being on the
land and outdoors," Dixon said. "You get to work out, and get
that sense of community - plus there's the quality, healthy food.
.... It's about believing in a localized economy, believing in
production that's ecologically and community-based."

The combination of working with the earth's natural systems and
community involvement has paid off. Over the course of several
seasons, Bison Ridge has grown a variety of vegetables, maple
syrup, wheat as well as eggs from free-range chickens. They have
a range of clients, including a supermarket and several restaurants,
and have delivered produce to many families in CSA (Community
Sponsored Agriculture) programs.

Although small, Bison Ridge Farm has prospered due to its
independence from increasingly expensive fossil fuel. Young said
that, since little if any of their revenue is spent on gas,
advertising
or transportation, it makes the food affordable to low-income
people, another goal that Young and Dixon are shooting for with
their farming.

Although Young and Dixon are happy about the monetary gains
the farm is producing, they have the most passion and enthusiasm
for the less tangible goods the farm provides.

"It's such a delight to work with," Dixon said. "You feel alive
when you're there."

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article%3FAID%3D/200608...
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On May 31, 10:52 am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" <n... DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote
> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>
> >>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>
> >> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
> >> the animals themselves should also always be given
> >> much consideration.
>
> >No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
> >lives".

*EXACTLY* right.


>
> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
> for them the be raised for food, their lives

NO. There is zero reason to give "their lives" any consideration. Of
course, what you mean, Fuckwit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
and that's just wrong. You will never persuade anyone of that. The
*welfare* of their lives, if the lives occur, is important; "their
lives", as something that should be given even a moment's
consideration before the lives occur, are not important.

You'll never get there, Fuckwit, no matter how much bullshit you spew
and how much wasted time you put into it: you will never persuade
anyone that livestock "ought" to exist out of any consideration of
their lives.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" <no DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>
>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>> much consideration.
>>
>
>
>No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>lives".

In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:

>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>the livestock exist.

If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
"entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

"Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" <shrubkiller RemoveThis @excite.com> wrote

>> A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense Fuckwit Harrison's campaign
>> to
>> convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
>> products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals.
>> By
>> that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> YOU are worse than Goo!
>
> I have NEVER opposed animal consumption because it would preclude life
> for "livestock".

It may not be the reason, but it would be the inevitable result.

> I oppose it because it is an unhealthy choice for humans and the
> planet as a whole and a terrible, horrible, life and death for the
> animals.

Yup, yer a Goo. Welcome to the club, Goos come in all ages and sizes, from
ARAs to staunch anti-ARAs, all have one thing in common, we realize that
there is no moral significance in the idea that livestock would not get to
be born and experience the wonder of life if we stopped using animal
products.

Have you seen the movie "Fast Food Nation"? That'll get your juices flowing.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" <no.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>>
>>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>>> much consideration.
>>>
>>
>>
>>No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>>lives".
>
> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
> for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
> lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.

Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral consequence.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

<dh@.> wrote in message news:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax.com...
> On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>>They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
>>the livestock exist.
>
> If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
> then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
> to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
> do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
> "entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.


Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you, Zero.
It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs who
say that it's cruel to raise livestock.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....DeleteThis@excite.com> wrote:
> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> *consumption*.
>
> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> livestock.
>
> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> you're looking at the production of consumer
> electronics, for example, then the output is
> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> television set is going to cost several hundred
> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> than others.
>
> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> higher priced because they use more resources to
> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> devices.
>
> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> I hope this helps.

The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction. Also, we
could feed more people from a given amount of land. That's the sense
of "efficiency" being used. It shouldn't be too obscure. You may argue
that we shouldn't bother to take into account environmental
externalities or the fact that a lot of people are going hungry, but
that's precisely the point at issue. There's no "unbelievably stupid
mistake" involved. I hope this helps.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....DeleteThis@excite.com> wrote:
> pearl wrote:
> > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....DeleteThis@excite.com> wrote:
> >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> *consumption*.
>
> >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >> livestock.
>
> > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> consumer demand.
>

No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
not enough internalization of externalities.

> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> could use bicycles.

You've totally missed the point.

> People want meat. As long as the
> meat is produced using the lowest price resource
> combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
> matters.
>

Ipse dixit. It should be clear to any reasonably intelligent person
what the intended sense of efficiency is. If you want to argue that
considerations of efficiency in that sense don't matter, then, um,
you've got to do just that, argue the point. Offer the slightest
reason to think that efficiency in that sense doesn't matter. In other
words, actually engage with the argument instead of talking about an
irrelevant sense of "efficiency".


>
>
>
>
> >> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >> you're looking at the production of consumer
> >> electronics, for example, then the output is
> >> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >> television set is going to cost several hundred
> >> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > 'Livestock a major threat to environment
> > [snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]
>
> >> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >> substitutable.
>
> > 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
>
> >[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]
>
> >> As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >> than others.
>
> > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> > Farming in harmony with nature
>
> > [snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> >> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >> higher priced because they use more resources to
> >> produce.
>
> > Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?
>
> >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > 'Analyses of data from the China
>
> >[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> >> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> >> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >> devices.
>
> >> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> >> I hope this helps.
>
> > "Isn't man an amazing animal?
>
> Yes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On May 31, 7:24 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....RemoveThis@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > pearl wrote:
> > > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....RemoveThis@excite.com> wrote:
> > >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> > >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > >> *consumption*.
>
> > >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > >> livestock.
>
> > > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> > Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > consumer demand.
>
> No-one's disputing that.

Yes, stupid "vegans" are. They're bitching that the demand itself is
for "inefficient" things. They're stupid, and they're wrong. Things
cannot be inefficient; the method of production of particular things
can be.


> > Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > could use bicycles.
>
> You've totally missed the point.

No. I absolutely get the point. Stupid "vegans" - you, for example -
think people want "food". That's false.


> > People want meat. As long as the
> > meat is produced using the lowest price resource
> > combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
> > matters.
>
> Ipse dixit.

False. That is *the* definition of efficiency, rupie-the-boy.

> > >> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> > >> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> > >> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> > >> you're looking at the production of consumer
> > >> electronics, for example, then the output is
> > >> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> > >> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> > >> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> > >> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> > >> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> > >> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> > >> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> > >> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> > >> television set is going to cost several hundred
> > >> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> > >> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> > >> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> > >> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> > > 'Livestock a major threat to environment
> > > [snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]
>
> > >> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> > >> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> > >> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> > >> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> > >> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> > >> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> > >> substitutable.
>
> > > 'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
>
> > >[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]
>
> > >> As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> > >> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> > >> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> > >> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> > >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> > >> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> > >> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> > >> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> > >> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> > >> than others.
>
> > > 'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
> > > Farming in harmony with nature
>
> > > [snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> > >> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> > >> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> > >> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> > >> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> > >> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> > >> higher priced because they use more resources to
> > >> produce.
>
> > > Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?
>
> > >> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> > >> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> > >> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> > >> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> > >> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> > >> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> > > 'Analyses of data from the China
>
> > >[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]
>
> > >> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> > >> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> > >> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> > >> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> > >> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> > >> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> > >> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> > >> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> > >> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> > >> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> > >> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> > >> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> > >> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> > >> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> > >> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> > >> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> > >> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> > >> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> > >> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> > >> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> > >> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> > >> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> > >> devices.
>
> > >> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> > >> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> > >> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> > >> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> > >> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> > >> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> > >> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> > >> meat production falls to the ground.
>
> > >> I hope this helps.
>
> > > "Isn't man an amazing animal?
>
> > Yes.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate 

On Jun 1, 2:47 pm, Rudy Canoza <notgen....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 7:24 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....TakeThisOut@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > pearl wrote:
> > > > On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can....TakeThisOut@excite.com> wrote:
> > > >> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> > > >> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>
> > > > [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>
> > > >> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> > > >> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> > > >> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> > > >> *consumption*.
>
> > > >> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> > > >> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> > > >> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> > > >> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> > > >> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> > > >> livestock.
>
> > > > "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> > > > and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> > > > raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> > > > feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> > > > hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> > > > livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>
> > > > The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> > > > going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> > > > going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> > > > longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> > > > deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> > > > be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> > > > fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> > > > livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> > > > back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> > > > them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>
> > > Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> > > another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> > > inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> > > consumer demand.
>
> > No-one's disputing that.
>
> Yes, stupid "vegans" are. They're bitching that the demand itself is
> for "inefficient" things. They're stupid, and they're wrong. Things
> cannot be inefficient; the method of production of particular things
> can be.
>

They're saying that consumer preferences are having a pernicious
impact on the environment and on the global distribution of food. The
onus is on you to argue that this is false or that we shouldn't be
concerned about these things.

> > > Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> > > as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> > > could use bicycles.
>
> > You've totally missed the point.
>
> No. I absolutely get the point. Stupid "vegans" - you, for example -
> think people want "food". That's false.
>

Sane people do not dispute the fact that people want food. What you
are really trying to say is that I think that food is homgeneous. This
is not what I think, and I don't think anyone else thinks it either.
The argument is that meat production has effects which are
undesirable. The onus is on you to argue that these effects don't
really happen, or that they're not really undesirable. You haven't
made the slightest attempt to do that, so you haven't really engaged
with the argument.

> > > People want meat. As long as the
> > > meat is produced using the lowest price resource
> > > combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
> > > matters.
>
> > Ipse dixit.
>
> False.

It's clearly true. You offered no argument.

>That is *the* definition of efficiency, rupie-the-boy.
>

The onus is on you to show that the considerations raised by the
argument you are attacking "don't matter". You haven't made the
slightest attempt to do this.
 >> Stay informed about: The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate